Originally posted by: jonks
While this should almost always be a winning issue for Democrats, I feel bringing it up always reveals the hypocrisy inherent in their position. Dem pols feel gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but they doublespeak their way into arguing against gay marriage because they know it's a losing political issue outside of liberal states, which is the overwhelming majority of them.
The gay issue highlights the negative stereotype of Dems as the cowards who lack the courage of their convictions.
Dems whine about discrimination against gays, yet pioneer "don't ask, don't tell," and are against gay marriage.
All the gay issue does is illustrate how the Dems are "less bigoted overall" than the Reps, who want to actively discriminate, pass Constitutional amendments against gays, prevent equal benefits to lifelong partners, etc. I don't think being "less racist" is something to brag about, and neither is "less homophobic."
I agree with you that many democrats fall short on the moral position on this issue.
But I'd say that you need to think about the level of condemntation you express. Ultimately, winning elections does matter, and if you have a view the majority disagrees with, you have to weigh the choice of letting an opponent get power on all the other issues; ultimately, politics is about representing the people, not only telling them you're right and they're wrong.
There are no small number of tragedies of politicians doing the 'right thing' on one issue, but paying the price. Take Pat Brown, who was a very popular governor of California in its 'golden age' - but lost an election to Ronald Reagan because he stood against capital punishment, leading Reagan to a launching pad for the presidency filled with death squads, the war on the middle class, and the beginning of huge national debt.
On the other hand, JFK wrote 'Profiles in Courage' about politicans who did stand up on such issues, and there's a case for that.
Being 'less homophobic' may not be much to brag about, but the Republicans who pander to the bigots are, of course worse - you might mistake them for 'standing strong' on the wrong side of the issue, but on the other hand, look at how the segregationist politicians crumbled when it went our of fashion - they were panderers, pure and simple. You can hear some of them practically admitting as much as they wheel and deal with the Kennedys on the secret recordings in civil rights crises, how they have to 'look' like they're defying the government for political reasons, but of course are willing to work out a secret plan to let the federal government win.
Politics has messy compromises, and you may be too demanding of a position that could let the bigots get power.
Unfortunately, it does take time to get change like this accepted. You can look back to the 70's and see a long road they've travelled in slowly gaining public acceptance. Remember it was only in 2003 that the last *criminal* laws against homosexuality were removed - not by the public progressing, but by the Supreme Court.
